Rotherham (yes, that one) want rapists to spend time with their (victims') children

What about from the child's point of view? Not their fault they were conceived through rape. Could be reasons (medical necessities included) why they'd need to know who their biological father was.

From the article there's no implication that Woodhouse (one of Hussain's victims who has waived her anonymity) would be obligated to bring her son to see his rapist dad, but it's certainly sticking the boot in. Rotherham Council, who tried to cover up the child rape gangs because they wanted to protect gangs of Asian men, chose to send social workers to Hussain's prison to invite him to make contact with his son.

Obviously any prisoner can make a request to see anyone. The prison officers just need not listen to anything apart from it being their lawyer. But it is another thing for a council that so badly failed young girls like Woodhouse was at the time, and potentially many more in future had they had their way of covering it up, to actively try to get child rapists involved in their victims' lives again. By being a rapist, by raping their mother, and by raping their mother when she was a child, these criminals have proven beyond all doubt they'd make godawful parents so there is no reason whatsoever for them to be involved in their child's life. And that's if you manage to ignore the trauma to the mother.

What about from the child's point of view? Not their fault they were conceived through rape. Could be reasons (medical necessities included) why they'd need to know who their biological father was.

From the article there's no implication that Woodhouse (one of Hussain's victims who has waived her anonymity) would be obligated to bring her son to see his rapist dad, but it's certainly sticking the boot in. Rotherham Council, who tried to cover up the child rape gangs because they wanted to protect gangs of Asian men, chose to send social workers to Hussain's prison to invite him to make contact with his son.

Obviously any prisoner can make a request to see anyone. The prison officers just need not listen to anything apart from it being their lawyer. But it is another thing for a council that so badly failed young girls like Woodhouse was at the time, and potentially many more in future had they had their way of covering it up, to actively try to get child rapists involved in their victims' lives again. By being a rapist, by raping their mother, and by raping their mother when she was a child, these criminals have proven beyond all doubt they'd make godawful parents so there is no reason whatsoever for them to be involved in their child's life. And that's if you manage to ignore the trauma to the mother.

I actually think this story is a bit confusing.

This woman was apparently 15 when she had her baby and she is now 33, which would make her child 18.

And at the age of 18 it is obviously the child's choice whether or not they want to see their biological father - neither a court nor a council can force an 18 year old to see their parents.

If the 18 year old wanted to meet his biological father, then that is his prerogative too.

The act was abhorrent and the rapist should be locked up for a long time. On the other hand, I think there should a chance for the child to know their father. Yes, what the man did was bad, but growing up without a father could have a big impact on the child’s life.

I think the child, when old enough, should be given the facts. Then it should be up to them to decide whether they want to engage with a rapist dad or not.

I see what you're saying. But the council sent social workers to the convicted child rapist in prison to invite him to make contact, not the son. Why are they trying to instigate things from that side?

I see what you're saying. But the council sent social workers to the convicted child rapist in prison to invite him to make contact, not the son. Why are they trying to instigate things from that side?

I actually think this story is a bit confusing.

This woman was apparently 15 when she had her baby and she is now 33, which would make her child 18.

And at the age of 18 it is obviously the child's choice whether or not they want to see their biological father - neither a court nor a council can force an 18 year old to see their parents.

If the 18 year old wanted to meet his biological father, then that is his prerogative too.

Maybe to establish contact?? I agree this was a very silly move, but I think the fundamental action of uniting child with their rapist dad may be good to the benefit of the child.

I think the best approach should have been to reach out to the mother and child. Afterwards, engage with the rapist to ensure child and dad engage, but according to the child’s rules.

Did I read that right?
You believe that adult rapists in prison with a history of raping minors should be allowed to have contact with children.
That convicted rapists should be invited by the authorities to compound the devastation that they have already wreaked upon the lives of the women that they raped and any children born as a result of the rape.

Real question is why did she keep the kid? In this situation the best solution is adoption.